Governor Romney should become an expert at delivering some version of the following comments whenever he's asked about President Obama's record on Foreign Policy, what he would have done differently or when asked about a specific, current, FP issue;
"Overall, I think President Obama has a done better on Foreign Policy than he has on the economy. There are some aspects of his foreign policy that I agree with and then there are others that I think I would have handled differently. But, it's important to remember that, even as a presidential candidate, I don't have access to all of the classified information nor do I receive the same quality of intel briefings that he does. Finally, until President Bush's administration, we used to have a long standing practice of not attacking the President on foreign policy issues to ensure America spoke with one voice. So, regardless of whether I agree with President Obama's foreign policies or not, I'm not going to second guess him for political expediency."
Why?
1. President Obama is much more vulnerable on economic issues than on foreign policy. Time and resources spent attacking him on FP are time and resources not available to remind everybody that "it's the economy, stupid"
2. Let's be honest, Mitt doesn't have a FP record to brag about. In fact, he doesn't have any FP experience at all, except for the Olympics. That's kind of like bragging that your experience as a community organizer is proof you're ready to lead the free world.
3. Speaking about a lack of FP experience...Paul Ryan is a little lite on that one, too. At least BHO could point to Joe Biden in 2008.
4. These responses leave very little room for counter-attack or even further digging because MR isn't really saying anything negative about BHO's record nor is he saying anything specific about his own FP plans or beliefs. Mitt can control the conversation while appearing to stay above partisan politics. He can play the "I don't have enough information to really comment"- card, implying that his access to the intel is insufficient compared to what the President has and that commenting without knowing all the facts would be inappropriate. If the facts are publicly known he can play the "I'm not going to second guess the President for political gain" - card.
5. President Obama does have a pretty good record on FP. Iraq wound down just like President Bush set it up to so it's hard for conservatives to blame President Obama for whatever happens. He tried the "surge" strategy in Afghanistan and gave the commanders most of what they asked for. It's pretty clear that we aren't going to accomplish much more in Afghanistan, regardless of who the CINC is, so setting a withdrawal date is fine with me....just wish it were sooner. Additionally, whenever liberals start bragging about P. Obama's FP, conservative frequently respond that BHO is simply following in GWB's footsteps...doing the same thing GWB did. If that's the case, then there really is very little for conservatives to complain about. Yes, we don't know how the "Arab Spring" is going to play out and the evidence seems to be pointing more and more to a failure of leadership regarding the terrorist attack on our embassy in Libya. And Iran is still trying to develop a nuclear weapon, but what, specifically, would MR do differently?
6. MR needs some of the voters who supported BHO in 2008 to either stay home or come to the R side. The best way to do that isn't to make them feel stupid for voting for BHO in the last election. MR needs to tacitly imply that voting for BHO in 2008 wasn't completely stupid, and by giving him his props in FP, Mitt is giving the swing voters an out...they can feel good about BHO's FP performance, (especially compared to GWB's in their mind anyway) and that will legitimize their 2008 decision. Now they can feel good about voting for MR in 2012...BHO was the right guy in 2008 and MR is the right guy in 2012. "People hate to be sold, but they love to buy."
MR is riding a wave right now because of his performance in the first debate. Now is not the time to get cocky and to go on the FP attack. FP isn't that important to voters right now and, in general, President Obama's record on FP isn't nearly as susceptible to attack as his economic record is. Stay on message and don't give the press or BHO an opening on what is, right now anyway, a sideshow of the election.
"Overall, I think President Obama has a done better on Foreign Policy than he has on the economy. There are some aspects of his foreign policy that I agree with and then there are others that I think I would have handled differently. But, it's important to remember that, even as a presidential candidate, I don't have access to all of the classified information nor do I receive the same quality of intel briefings that he does. Finally, until President Bush's administration, we used to have a long standing practice of not attacking the President on foreign policy issues to ensure America spoke with one voice. So, regardless of whether I agree with President Obama's foreign policies or not, I'm not going to second guess him for political expediency."
Why?
1. President Obama is much more vulnerable on economic issues than on foreign policy. Time and resources spent attacking him on FP are time and resources not available to remind everybody that "it's the economy, stupid"
2. Let's be honest, Mitt doesn't have a FP record to brag about. In fact, he doesn't have any FP experience at all, except for the Olympics. That's kind of like bragging that your experience as a community organizer is proof you're ready to lead the free world.
3. Speaking about a lack of FP experience...Paul Ryan is a little lite on that one, too. At least BHO could point to Joe Biden in 2008.
4. These responses leave very little room for counter-attack or even further digging because MR isn't really saying anything negative about BHO's record nor is he saying anything specific about his own FP plans or beliefs. Mitt can control the conversation while appearing to stay above partisan politics. He can play the "I don't have enough information to really comment"- card, implying that his access to the intel is insufficient compared to what the President has and that commenting without knowing all the facts would be inappropriate. If the facts are publicly known he can play the "I'm not going to second guess the President for political gain" - card.
5. President Obama does have a pretty good record on FP. Iraq wound down just like President Bush set it up to so it's hard for conservatives to blame President Obama for whatever happens. He tried the "surge" strategy in Afghanistan and gave the commanders most of what they asked for. It's pretty clear that we aren't going to accomplish much more in Afghanistan, regardless of who the CINC is, so setting a withdrawal date is fine with me....just wish it were sooner. Additionally, whenever liberals start bragging about P. Obama's FP, conservative frequently respond that BHO is simply following in GWB's footsteps...doing the same thing GWB did. If that's the case, then there really is very little for conservatives to complain about. Yes, we don't know how the "Arab Spring" is going to play out and the evidence seems to be pointing more and more to a failure of leadership regarding the terrorist attack on our embassy in Libya. And Iran is still trying to develop a nuclear weapon, but what, specifically, would MR do differently?
6. MR needs some of the voters who supported BHO in 2008 to either stay home or come to the R side. The best way to do that isn't to make them feel stupid for voting for BHO in the last election. MR needs to tacitly imply that voting for BHO in 2008 wasn't completely stupid, and by giving him his props in FP, Mitt is giving the swing voters an out...they can feel good about BHO's FP performance, (especially compared to GWB's in their mind anyway) and that will legitimize their 2008 decision. Now they can feel good about voting for MR in 2012...BHO was the right guy in 2008 and MR is the right guy in 2012. "People hate to be sold, but they love to buy."
MR is riding a wave right now because of his performance in the first debate. Now is not the time to get cocky and to go on the FP attack. FP isn't that important to voters right now and, in general, President Obama's record on FP isn't nearly as susceptible to attack as his economic record is. Stay on message and don't give the press or BHO an opening on what is, right now anyway, a sideshow of the election.
No comments:
Post a Comment